I say right-of-way.
What say you?
Right-of-way is easement
Fee title and rights of reversion are held by the grantor.
:good:
You may need to verify when municipalities could accept fee title to public ways. For California, this is stated in the Streets and Highways Code. Cities and Counties could only acquire an easement prior to September 1955, unless the public way was taken by condemnation. When created on a Map, this usually only conveys an easement for the right-of-way.
You may be able to consult a local title officer to see what information they know in regards for title to public ways.
Brad Luken, LS
AZ, CA, NV & OR
Right-of Way Easement
Have a great week! B-)
It's a "perpetual easement for a right of way." That means it's an "easement" (a right of use as opposed to a title interest) for a "right of way" (a right to use the easement for right of way purposes). Right of way purposes include not only ingress-egress rights, but also include the right for access for utilities installations that benefit the dominant estate.
JBS
This language is what has me siding with Right-of-Way over easement.
It's poorly written.
A "right of way" implies travel or passage over the area in question.
An "easement" refers to any right to use the land owned by another for a specific purpose, not necessarily passage or entry.
Both
Since that is pre-printed boilerplate, I doubt there was any thought given to the words, and would not reflect the intent if it differs from the typed verbage.
Blacks describes a Right-of-Way as an Easement. No transfer of fee, just another type of right to use others property for something. The above should have said that the tract was subject to the right of way easement.
Not all ROW include utilities.
Ok, this thread messed up my View.
It's huge now. How do I re-size everything back down.
Many utilities around here can not build within a hwy ROW and need to obtain easements outside of the hwy easement.
jud
I agree with most of the posters so far, but especially with DavidAlee.
Right of way is an easement, there is no implication of fee simple title. It does seem like a lot of folks take it to mean that, but it doesn't.
So it is an an easement for travel or ingress-egress, whichever the case may be.
Stephen
hold down "control" while turning the round wheel on your mouse if you have one. mine is between the left-click and right-click buttons.
easement
the r/w described is owned in fee by the Grantor (property owner). The county paid a fee (the $10 is basic laanguage and does not intend to describe the actual amount paid) for use of the 27.00' probably for roadway purposes. Sometimes, during a widening project where new r/w is required, the agency (city, county or state), may wish to acquire the land in fee title. in this case, after the description of the new r/w to be acquired, a sentence similar to this is added: "TOGETHER with, any and all of the Grantor's fee interest in and to all of the higheay r/w for said highway XX, if any." This would convey fee title of what was previously covered only by easement.
It gives a limited purpose, so it is an easement for right-of-way purposes, as it says.
A transfer for a particular purpose, is not a fee-simple transfer of the land. If you wrote a warranty deed, even, but limited the purpose, it would be an easement. (I'm not a lawyer, and I am sure there is specific language that has been interpreted differently, but generally speaking limiting the purpose on the deed makes it an easment.)
A right of way is a type of easement. The controlling noun is a "right" and the type of right is the "passageway".
Rights of Way have also become a term for fee-simple corridors, for instance a railway or a highway that was purchased full title. If you look at most of the newer highway right-of-way documents they won't say "for right-of-way purposes". If they do it is inferred as an easement.
> A "right of way" implies travel or passage over the area in question.
>
> An "easement" refers to any right to use the land owned by another for a specific purpose, not necessarily passage or entry.
Both above are true, however, we need to be a bit more specific than that.
The term "right of way" can refer to a strip of land conveyed in fee title or to an easement right. The determination must be made in the context of the accompanying terms or from the document as a whole.
The term "right of way" can also refer to the passage over the area which is generally construed as granting more than the "right of passage" as there are no limitations or restrictions such as found in the terms "ingress and egress" or "utility purposes." That's why an easement for a "right of way" would include more than "ingress and egress" and would be construed to include utility purposes, both underground and overhead.
In this particular document, the specific language in the description clearly conveys an "easement" for [the purpose of] a "right of way." You can't rearrange the terms, ignore the terms, or go beyond the meaning of those terms in the description.
There is an apparent conflict found in the operative language of the document which gives the appearance of conveying "all the right, title, interest, claim and demand" in the "lot, piece or parcel of land." Clearly, the conveyance of an easement does not include "title, interest, claim, or demand," but conveys only a "right of use."
The ambiguity arises simply from the wrong choice of forms used for the conveyance. The scrivener chose to use a "quitclaim deed" form to convey an easement interest. That's not the correct form type. They should have used an "easement grant" form instead. The canned language on the quitclaim deed transfers or releases any "right, title or interest" in the strip, but the more specific description limits the conveyance to an "easement."
An interpretation that the document conveys full fee title to the property negates the use of the term "easement" in the description. The term must be given meaning.
>Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void.
>Sic interpretandum est ut verba accipiantur cum effectu. Such an interpretation is to be made, that the words may have an effect.
>Quod factum est, cum in obscuro sit, ex affectione cujusque capit interpretationem. Doubtful and ambiguous clauses ought to be construed according to the intentions of the parties.
JBS
ROW = Easements in CT..